Bombay High Court
Vivekanand Education Society ... vs Gautam S/O Bhauji Bhinzade on 30 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 wp 805-2021, 3719-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 805 of 2021
Vivekanand Education Society's & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Thakur
WITH
Writ Petition No. 3719 of 2020
Vivekanand Education Society's & Anr. Vs. Gautam Bhinzade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. G.M. Shitut, Advocate for the petitioners
Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for the respondents
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : JUNE 30, 2021
Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. These are Writ Petitions filed by the same
Management being aggrieved by orders dated
13/03/2020, passed in applications for condonation of
delay filed on behalf of respondent No.1 before the
School Tribunal at Nagpur.
3. The first respondents in both these Petitions
had filed Appeals before the School Tribunal along
with applications for condonation of delay. Insofar as
Writ Petition No.3719 of 2020 is concerned, delay of
2 wp 805-2021, 3719-20.odt
485 days was condoned by the impugned order and in
Writ Petition No. 805 of 2021, delay of 432 days was
condoned by the impugned order.
4. Although, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the respondents made vehement
submissions in respect of the correctness or otherwise
of the orders impugned in these Petitions, a particular
aspect brought to the notice of this Court warrants that
the impugned orders be set aside and the matters need
to be remanded for the question of condonation of
delay to be decided afresh by the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in both these Petitions did make an attempt
to indicate before this Court that sufficient cause for
condonation of delay was not made out by the first
respondents and that the Tribunal had erred in passing
the impugned orders. Equally, the learned counsel
appearing for the first respondents in these Petitions
sought to justify the orders passed by the Tribunal.
6. But, as noted above, a particular aspect has
assumed significance in both these Petitions. During
the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in both these Petitions invited
attention of this Court to copies of roznamas,
pertaining to proceedings before the Tribunal in these
cases. In both these cases on 12/03/2020, identical
proceedings were recorded by the Tribunal. Initially, it
3 wp 805-2021, 3719-20.odt
was recorded that while the respondent i.e. appellant
before the Tribunal with his counsel was present and
that the respondent therein i.e. petitioner -
management before this Court was absent and there
was no representation on behalf of the said party. It
was further recorded that the applications were being
posted for 13/03/2020, to enable the respondent
therein i.e. the petitioner before this Court to submit
replies. Surprisingly, in the roznama pertaining to the
same date i.e. 12/03/2020, at the bottom, further
notings are found. It is stated that at 4:15 p.m. the
first respondents along with their Counsel were
present, the matter proceeded without say of the
respondents therein i.e. the petitioner before this Court
and having heard the respondents i.e. the appellant
before the Tribunal and his counsel, the matter was
closed for judgment. Thereafter, it was noted that the
matter has been posted on 13/03/2020.
7. By the impugned orders passed on
13/03/2020, the delay was condoned. The aforesaid
procedure adopted by the Tribunal was wholly
erroneous for the reason that having initially posted
the matter on 13/03/2020, for filing of reply by the
petitioner - management, there was no propriety for
the Tribunal to have taken up the matter again at 4:15
p.m. and after hearing only respondents and their
counsels, closing the matter for judgment on the
question of condonation of delay. It is only on this
ground that this Court is inclined to partly allow the
4 wp 805-2021, 3719-20.odt
present Writ Petitions.
8. Although, the learned counsel appearing for
the first respondents in both these Petitions vehemently
submitted that the petitioners and its Counsel had
appeared before the Tribunal as far back as in January
2020, this Court is of the opinion that the manner in
which the Tribunal proceeded on 12/03/2020, renders
the impugned orders unsustainable.
9. Hence, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the Tribunal in both these
Petitions for decision afresh on the applications for
condonation of delay.
10. It is informed that the next date of listing of
the appeals before the Tribunal is 13/07/2021. The
petitioner - management in both these petitions is
granted liberty to file replies to the applications for
condonation of delay on 13/07/2020, before the
Tribunal. Such replies shall be taken on record by the
Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall immediately
take up the said applications for condonation of delay
for consideration and after giving proper opportunity
to the rival parties, decide the same at the earliest and
in any case on or before 31/07/2021.
11. Writ Petitions stand disposed of in above
5 wp 805-2021, 3719-20.odt
terms.
12. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the
rival parties insofar as the prayer for condonation of
delay is concerned.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
